Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of stock of traded goods. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the appeals for both assessment years 2013-14 and 2018-19 on grounds of delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was not attributable to the assessee, considering the COVID-19 pandemic period as per the Supreme Court's directions. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned considering the COVID-19 pandemic period, and if the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeals on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148, 142(1), 115JB, 234A, 234B, 234C, 80IC, 139(1), 115JAA, 115JC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
: Assessee by Shri R D Onkar : S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Department by Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 06-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 14-05-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 22.10.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2018-19 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(A.Y. 2013-14) 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of auto parts / components pressed and fabricated for automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers. It filed its return of income on 28.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,36,49,612/- after claiming deduction of Rs.12,10,83,766/- from the gross total income of Rs.16,47,33,378/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed on 28.06.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,36,53,896/-. Subsequently it was noted from the financials that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22,14,956/- to Rs.6,00,43,067/- and the assessee should have shown the difference of opening and closing inventory of traded goods in Profit and Loss Account. However, the effect of change in inventory on this account was not shown in the Profit and Loss Account. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 18.03.2020. However, the assessee did not file any return in response to the same. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates asking the assessee to file return for assessment year 2013-14 as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee was also served a copy of the reasons for re- assessment of its return for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee was also asked to explain the effect of change in inventory on its Profit and Loss Account and income. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,78,28,111/- to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the closing stock of traded goods has increased from Rs.22,14,956/- to Rs.6,00,43,067/- and the assessee should have shown the difference of opening and closing inventory of traded goods in the Profit and Loss Account. Since the assessee did not show the effect of change in inventory in the Profit and Loss Account and no other evidence was submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer concluded that there was wrong adoption of net profit while computing the total income for assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,14,77,723/-.
Since there was a delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC relying on various decisions dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.
4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:
On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as rendered inadmissible drawing a conclusion that the so called delay in filing appeal was not condonable and the appeal was barred by limitation.
1.1 The learned CITA without deciding the appeal on merits failed to appreciate that the so called delay included the period of unprecedented global outbreak of Covid 19 Pandemic in three phases and the appellant had prayed for condonation of the delay accompanied by affidavit of its Managing Director affirming that the delay had come to occur on appellant's part due to the outbreak of pandemic of such disastrous nature which was not within the confines of human control. 1.2 The learned CITA failed to appreciate that the prescribed period of limitation stood extended in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings by the ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in MA no. 21 of 2022-Cognizance for extension of limitation (2022) 441 ITR 772 (SC) taking suo motu cognizance of the distress situation caused by the pandemic and faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/ appeals and extending the period upto May 29, 2022 excluding the entire period between 15th March 2020 to 28 February 2022 and further period of 90 days from 28th February 2022 to 29th May, 2022. The learned CITA erred in not taking cognizance of fact that the extant appeal had been filed by the appellant before the expiry of the extended period viz., upto 29th May 2022 and the so called delay of 54 days was not a delay in the light of the aforesaid extension permitted by the Honourable Apex Court. 1.3 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant being a corporate entity had to necessarily function through human agency especially in matters of tax compliances and filing of appeals etc. and the appellants were most likely to depend on the professional services for that purpose which could not be availed in above said circumstances.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstances and the powers conferred by the Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal, an empathetic humane view of the matter ought to have been adopted.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits further erred in not appreciating and considering all the issues emanating from the order of the AO passed under section 147 read with section 144B. It is prayed that the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside and the appeal be restored with direction for fresh disposal by CIT(A) on merits of the case.
Grounds on merits of the issues
Against reopening of original assessment made u/s 143 (3) 3. The learned CITA failed to consider the submissions made against the reopening of assessment and failed to appreciate that in reassessing the income of the appellant u/s 147 the AO did not consider that the material facts were already before him in the scrutiny assessment done u/s 143 (3) for the impugned year and no addition to income on account of stock of traded goods had been made in the said scrutiny assessment and that the income of the appellant had been accepted and assessed under Section 115 JB of the Act. Your appellant submits that the reassessment of income was not called for in the light of the aforesaid facts and order of reassessment of income be quashed.
Addition on account of stock of traded goods Rs.5,78,28,111/- in the reassessment u/s 147.
The learned CITA failed to consider the submissions made against the aforesaid addition and failed to appreciate that-
4.1 The appellant had accumulated and capitalised the expenses incurred on tooling and dies at the behest and on behalf of the Customers of Rs.6,00,43,068/- under Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) in the General Ledger in the books of account and in the Balance Sheet and the said expenses were balance sheet items not having any impact on the taxable income of the appellant.
4.2 The said expenses accumulated under Capital work in progress though disclosed in the annual accounts under Stock of traded goods were actually expenses of capital nature incurred on development of tools and dies and were balance sheet items not impacting the revenue expenses and taxable income of the appellant. The appellant had accordingly grouped the said development expenses in the balance sheet under CWIP and were not taken in the Profit & Loss account on both of its debit and credit sides.
4.3 A mistaken disclosure in the annual accounts as stock of traded goods did not alter the nature and character of the capital expenses.
4.4 Even if it was assumed without conceding that the said accumulated expenses under CWIP were to be taken to the Profit & Loss Account, the true purpose of crediting the value of stock (tool and dies development cost closing balance of CWIP) would have been to balance the cost of those expenses entered on the debit side of the Profit & Loss account so that they cancelled out the impact of debit and credit entries from both sides of the account and the appellant had neither debited the said capital expenses in the Profit & Loss Account nor credited the said stock (development expenses on tooling and dies being the closing balance of CWIP) to the Profit & Loss Account and therefore there was no impact of such tax neutral treatment adopted by the appellant on the business profit and taxable income of the appellant for the relevant previous year.
4.5 The said closing balance of CWIP was invoiced to the customer in the succeeding year's on approval of the components manufactured out of tools and dies developed by the appellant and duly offered to tax by the appellant as business income.
4.6 Without prejudice to the above the addition of Rs.5,78,28,111/- on account of so called closing balance of stock of traded goods viz. CWIP closing balance Rs. 6,00,43,068 less Opening balance Rs. 22, 14,957/- was in respect of CWIP (tools and dies development cost) at its Pantnagar Uttrakhand Industrial Undertaking which was enjoying 100% tax exemption of income under Section 80 IC of the Act for the impugned year and credit of such closing stock of traded goods viz. CWIP expenses closing balance to the Profit & Loss Account would have gone to add only to the tax exempt income and could not have been said to be resulting in increasing the taxable income of the appellant for the extant A.Y. 2013-14.
Denial of MAT Credit set off 4.7 The learned CIT erred in not considering the submissions and failed to appreciate that the AO had erred in not allowing the MAT credit carried forward Rs. 1,88,44,145/- under Section 115JAA to be set off against the tax amount calculated under the normal provisions (non MAT provisions). The computation of income and consequent demand including interest charged under Section 234 A, B and C were prima facie incorrect and ought to have been corrected by the AO.
5 TDS credit not allowed The learned CITA erred in not considering the submission and failed to appreciate that the AO allowed only part credit of taxes deducted at source Rs.2,64,69,831 against total TDS credit amount of Rs.2,92,25,634/- claimed in the return of income by the appellant.
The learned CIT A erred in not considering that the learned AO had erred in not allowing the credit of tax deducted at source Rs.19,10,188/- which was in the name of the merged entity Panse Autocomp Pvt. Ltd.-PAN AABCP0249C.
6 Your Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any of the above grounds, if necessary.
5. The grounds of appeal No.1 and 1.2 relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not condoning the delay of 54 days and thereby dismissing the appeal as inadmissible.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order on 25.09.2021 and the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 23.04.2022. The so-called delay included the period of unprecedented global outbreak of Covid 19 Pandemic in three phases and the assessee had prayed for condonation of the delay accompanied by affidavit of its Managing Director affirming that the delay had come to occur due to the outbreak of pandemic beyond the control of the assessee. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, order dated 10.01.2022 was also cited before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC instead of considering the extended period of limitation by excluding the entire period between 15th March, 2020 to 29th May, 2022 considered the period only up to 28th February, 2022 and not up to 29th May, 2022 and drawn an inference that there was delay of 54 days which was not due to any reasonable cause. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the so-called delay of 54 days was not a delay in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). Even otherwise also, he submitted that in view of the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 and the landmark decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the delay and should have decided the appeal on merit.
The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not condoning the delay and thereby dismissing the appeal as inadmissible.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed by both sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, order dated 10.01.2022 has extended the period of limitation by excluding the entire period between 15th March, 2020 to 29th May, 2022. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from para 5 onwards read as under:
“5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No.29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.”
In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that that the appeal filed by the assessee is within limit and therefore the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC should not have dismissed the same as inadmissible.
Even otherwise also, we find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:
“14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”
In view of the above discussion and considering the fact that the assessee’s case falls within the limitation period prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, order dated 10.01.2022, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is not justified in rejecting the appeal being barred by limitation. Accordingly grounds of appeal No.1 to 1.3 raised by the assessee are allowed.
So far as the ground of appeal No.2 is concerned, the same relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not deciding the appeal on merit. Since, we have held that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal as inadmissible, therefore, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue on merit.
13. Since the other grounds raised by the assessee relate to various issues such as not giving MAT credit/TDS credit and validity of re-opening of assessment etc., which were not decided by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and considering the fact that we have already restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit, therefore, we restore other issues also to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide all the issues on merit after admitting the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee from 3 to 5 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as rendered inadmissible drawing a conclusion that the so called delay in filing appeal was not condonable and the appeal was barred by limitation. 1.1 The Learned CITA without deciding the appeal on merits failed to appreciate that the so called delay included the period of unprecedented global outbreak of Covid 19 Pandemic in three phases and the appellant had prayed for condonation of the delay accompanied by affidavit of its Managing Director affirming that the delay had come to occur on appellant's part due to the outbreak of pandemic of such disastrous nature which was not within the confines of human control. 1.2 The learned CITA failed to appreciate that the prescribed period of limitation stood extended in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings by the ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in MA no. 21 of 2022-Cognizance for extension of limitation (2022) 441 ITR 772 (SC) taking suo motu cognizance of the distress situation caused by the pandemic and faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/ suits/ appeals and extending the period upto May 29, 2022 excluding the entire period between 15th March 2020 to 28th February 2022 and further period of 90 days from 28th February 2022 to 29th May, 2022. The learned CITA erred in not taking cognizance of fact that the extant appeal had been filed by the appellant before the expiry of the extended period viz. upto 29th May 2022 and the so called delay of 57 days was not a delay in the light of the aforesaid extension permitted by the Honourable Apex Court.
1.3 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant being a corporate entity had to necessarily function through human agency especially in matters of tax compliances and filing of appeals etc. and the appellants were most likely to depend on the professional services for that purpose and which could not be availed in above said circumstances.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstances and the powers conferred by the Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal, an empathetic /Aimane view of the matter ought to have been adopted.
The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits further erred in not appreciating and considering all the issues emanating from the order of the AO passed under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It is prayed that the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside and the appeal be restored with direction for fresh disposal by CIT(A) on merits of the case
Grounds on merits of the issues 3. The learned CIT(A) by not considering the submissions of the appellant erred in impliedly confirming the additions made by the AO of Rs.6,66,08,836/- to the returned income Rs.9,35,89,620/- consisting of disallowance of employees' contribution to Employees Provident Fund Rs.7,86,126/- paid fully by the appellant before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139 (1) and disallowance of the claim for deduction made u/s 80 IC of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,58,22,710/- and thereby raising demand of Rs.5,54,41,483/- and interest u/s 234 A,B,C of the Act.
4. Against denial of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made against the aforesaid denial of deduction and failed to appreciate that 4.1 The learned AO had drawn an unwarranted inference in disallowing the claim of appellant that the appellant had not submitted information/ documents to establish genuineness of the claim for deduction Rs. 6,58,22,710/- under section 801C of the Act.
4.2 The learned AO had failed to appreciate that the said claim for deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act was duly certified and supported by the audit report in Form No. 10CCB furnished electronically as mandated under sub section 7 of Section 80 IC and Rule 12 (2) read with Rule 18BBB, along with the return of income and which inter alia gave the requisite information and established the bona fides and genuineness of the claim.
4.3 The learned AO had failed to appreciate that the said claim for deduction was made by the appellant right from A.Y. 2011-12 and had been allowed consistently all these preceding years after verification of the claim and when a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years had been sustained without there being any change in the fact situation in the impugned A.Y. 2018-19 there was no occasion to doubt the genuineness of the appellant's claim.
Against disallowance of Employees' contribution to EPF Rs.7,86,126/-
Learned CITA erred in not considering the submissions and appreciate the fact that the employees' contribution to Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) were paid fully during the relevant previous year by the appellant and before the due date of filing of Return of Income stipulated u/s 139 (1) and as the said claim was fully supported by the decisions of jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 and Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 001 the AO should not have disallowed the appellant's claim in the light of the said decisions.
It is prayed that the disallowance/ addition to income be directed to be deleted
6. Against denial of credit of foreign taxes paid Rs.30,43,360/- The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made against the denial of foreign tax credit and appreciate the fact that denial of FTC resulted in the consultancy income received by the appellant in Bangladesh suffering the tax twice due to its inclusion also in the total income chargeable to tax in India
7. Determination of income under provisions of Section 115JB The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions and appreciate that in determining the liability u/s 115 JB (MAT) vis-à-vis liability under normal provisions (non MAT provisions) the AO took the figure of book profit at Rs. Rs.16,99,63,485/-instead of the actual figure of book profit Rs.14,90,69,768/- without giving any finding or supporting reason for the variation thereof in the assessment order and that such a variation had a bearing on the tax liability under Section 115 JB and consequent MAT credit to be carried forward for set off under provisions of Section 115JAA of the Act.
8. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions and not appreciating that the AO had failed to grant MAT credit Rs.8,70,338/- in working out the tax demand under normal provisions of the Act for the impugned year A. Y. 2018-19 and also MAT credit carried forward and eligible for set off u/s 115 JAA amounting to Rs.7,52,74,344/- after having assessed the income under normal tax provisions (non MAT provisions) for the impugned assessment year 2018-19.
9. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions and not appreciated the fact that the AO had allowed credit of only a part of tax deducted at Rs.80,59,827/-as against total TDS credit amount claimed in the return of income of Rs. 81,55,217/-. The AO ought to have allowed the credit of total TDS Rs. 81,55,217/-. It is prayed that relief of tax credit viz FTC/TDS and the determination of MAT liability including MAT credit be directed to be made as requested for by the appellant. Your Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any of the above grounds, if necessary.
After hearing both sides, we find here also the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not admit the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal by 57 days. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case passed the order on 12.04.2021 and the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 26.04.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal as inadmissible on the ground that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. We find the facts in the instant case are identical to the facts in ITA No.2646/PUN/2024. We have already decided the issue and have held that there is no delay on the part of the assessee in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, order dated 10.01.2022. We have accordingly restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue on merit. Following similar reasonings, we restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Since the appeals are very old, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is directed to dispose of the appeals at the earliest preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th May, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (ASHTA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 14th May, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The Respondent 2. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 06.05.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 08.05.2025 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Head 9 Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order